Riddled with termites and covered in lead paint, it is the former Pine Gully School.

Closed in 1965, it schooled the children of lecturers and staff of the former Wagga Agricultural College.

In 1982, the school, weather-shed, dunny and surrounding land was transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Agriculture.

Since being closed, it has slowly deteriorated.

I am seeking any information from your readers who may have attended the school or has had any association with it.

There would still be a few readers around who would have gone to a similar school somewhere in rural NSW.

Like me, they would remember the freezing classrooms in winter and how stifling the classrooms became in summer. And not forgetting the long-drop dunny, which I was petrified I would fall into.

The buildings of the Pine Gully School may not survive, but the histories of the students and the school should be preserved and not forgotten.

I can be contacted on rosprangnell@gmail.com.

READ MORE LETTERS:

I wonder why Senator Matt Canavan believes that a soil carbon scheme "will destroy regional communities" (The Daily Advertiser, July 6).

I can only assume that he sees a soil carbon scheme as planting the whole countryside with trees.

Perhaps if he knew what a soil carbon scheme is he would have a different opinion.

Unfortunately, the article does not describe soil carbon schemes or what Senator Canavan thinks they are.

Quite simply, the schemes encourage the adoption of farming practices that increase soil carbon.

Australian farm soils have lost more than half their carbon content under practices brought largely from Europe.

However, modification of soil tillage, stubble management, cropping and pastures can increase the carbon stored in soil.

This increased soil carbon can lead to improved soil structure, better water holding capacity, reduced erosion, reduced loss from soil-borne diseases and better nutrient cycling.

In short, it can result in a more productive and profitable farming system.

Add to this the possible payment to the farmer for storing carbon and the profit is enhanced.

Tree planting is another method of sequestering carbon and is quite separate from increasing soil carbon.

There have long been arguments against planting agricultural land to trees in, for example, the Tumbarumba and Tumut areas, because of the loss of people from the area.

I suspect this is where Canavan is coming from.

Before taking Matt Canavan's word on soil carbon (or anything else), please check the facts and assumptions behind the headline.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.